Survival Advantage and Comparable Toxicity in Reduced-Toxicity Treosulfan-Based versus Reduced-Intensity Busulfan-Based Conditioning Regimen in Myelodysplastic Syndrome and Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Treosulfan has been incorporated in conditioning regimens for sustained remission without substantial toxicity and treatment-related mortality (TRM). We aimed to analyze the safety and efficacy of a fludarabine 150 mg/m2 and treosulfan 42 g/m2 (FluTreo) conditioning regimen in medically infirm patients. Outcomes were compared with those of a similar historical group treated with fludarabine 150 mg/m2 to 180 mg/m2, busulfan 6.4 mg/kg, and antithymocyte globulin (ATG) 5 mg/kg to 7.5 mg/kg (FluBuATG). Thirty-one consecutive patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 21), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS; n = 6), or treatment-related AML (n = 4) received FluTreo conditioning. The historical group consisted of 26 consecutive patients treated with FluBuATG. In the FluTreo group, engraftment was prompt in all patients and 74% achieved >99% donor chimerism by day +30. No grades III or IV organ toxicities were noted. One-year cumulative incidences (CI) of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) were 19.4% and 58.4%. The groups were similar for age, disease risk, lines of treatment, hematopoietic cell transplantation–specific comorbidity index, and acute or chronic GVHD incidence, except that there were more matched unrelated donor recipients in the FluTreo group (P < .001). With 20 (range, 2 to 36) months follow-up for FluTreo and 14 (range, 2 to 136) for FluBuATG, the 1-year cumulative overall survival (OS) probability was 76% versus 57%, respectively (P = .026); 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 79% versus 38% (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, the only significantly favorable factor for OS and DFS was FluTreo (P = .010 and P = .012). The CI of relapse mortality was markedly decreased in FluTreo versus FluBuATG (7.4% versus 42.3%, P < .001). In conclusion, the treosulfan-based regimen resulted in favorable OS and DFS with acceptable toxicity and low relapse rates compared with busulfan-based conditioning.